R v Miles - [2006] QCA 556

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Miles [2006] QCA 556

PARTIES:

R
v
MILES, Jane Elizabeth
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 266 of 2006
DC No 335 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2006; 7 December 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - GENERALLY - applicant convicted upon verdict of jury of dishonestly applying to her own use property belonging to another of a value of more than $5,000 - on 7 September 2006, applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 8 August 2007 - applicant withdrew money totalling $19,373.23 from account of complainant using complainant's telephone banking facility - complainant had lived with applicant for some months while convalescing - possible breach of trust situation - applicant had no prior convictions - applicant was in a "desperate" situation at time the dishonest application of funds began - applicant abandoned appeal against conviction at the hearing, continued with sentence application - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C

R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169; CA No 102 of 2004, 20 May 2004, considered
R v Ruddell [2005] QCA 346; [2006] 1 Qd R 361, considered
R v Shultz, [1997] QCA 169; Appeal No 111 of 1997, 27 May 1997, considered

COUNSEL:

P E Nolan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I agree with what has been said by Keane JA and there is nothing I wish to add thereto. I agree with the orders proposed.

KEANE JA: On 7 September 2006, the applicant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of dishonestly applying to her own use property belonging to another of a value of more that $5,000 in contravention of s 408C(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). For that offence, the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 8 August 2007.

The applicant appealed against the conviction, and she also sought leave to appeal against her sentence. The appeal against conviction was abandoned at the hearing of the appeal; and the matter proceeded as an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The only ground for the application for leave to appeal against sentence is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. It was argued in written submissions on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Miles

Details

AGLC: R v Miles [2006] QCA 556
Case: [2006] QCA 556
Decision Date: 19 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against her conviction and sought to reduce her sentence. She had been convicted of dishonestly applying to her own use property belonging to another of a value of more than $5,000. The applicant had withdrawn money totalling $19,373.23 from the account of the complainant using the complainant's telephone banking facility. The applicant had lived with the complainant for some months while the complainant was convalescing, creating a possible breach of trust situation. The applicant had no prior convictions and was in a "desperate" situation at the time the dishonest application of funds began. The applicant abandoned her appeal against the conviction at the hearing and continued with the sentence application.

The court had to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the relevant case law and the particular circumstances of the case. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The court considered the relevant case law and the particular circumstances of the case in reaching its decision.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The court considered the relevant case law and the particular circumstances of the case in reaching its decision.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Miles [2006] QCA 556
PARTIES:	R v MILES, Jane Elizabeth (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 266 of 2006 DC No 335 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 December 2006; 7 December 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - GENERALLY - applicant convicted upon verdict of jury of dishonestly applying to her own use property belonging to another of a value of more than $5,000 - on 7 September 2006, applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 8 August 2007 - applicant withdrew money totalling $19,373.23 from account of complainant using complainant's telephone banking facility - complainant had lived with applicant for some months while convalescing - possible breach of trust situation - applicant had no prior convictions - applicant was in a "desperate" situation at time the dishonest application of funds began - applicant abandoned appeal against conviction at the hearing, continued with sentence application - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169; CA No 102 of 2004, 20 May 2004, considered R v Ruddell [2005] QCA 346; [2006] 1 Qd R 361, considered R v Shultz, [1997] QCA 169; Appeal No 111 of 1997, 27 May 1997, considered
COUNSEL:	P E Nolan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent